Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 12-04-18 (-"A\ Cityof C Carmel Plan Commission COMMERCIAL COMMITTEE Tuesday, December 4, 2018 Meeting Location: Cannel City Hall Caucus Rooms,2nd Floor, 1 Civic Square,Cannel,IN 46032 Members Present: Tom Kegley,Alan Potasnik,John Adams,Laura Campbell Staff Present: Rachel Keesling,Nathan Chavez,John Molitor,Mike Hollibaugh,Adrienne Keeling Time of Meeting: 6:00 PM The Commercial Committee met to consider the following items: 1. Docket No. 18090015 DP/ADLS: Onyx Office Suites The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a new,two story office building,totaling 31,808 sq.ft. It will be about 30'tall with 132 parking spaces provided.The site is located at 10439 Commerce Drive. It is zoned B-5/Business and is not located within any overlay zone. Filed by David Klain of D.B. Klain. Petitioner: David Klain(DB Klain Construction)&Mark Thorpe(Weihe Engineers) Mark Thorpe • At the November 20th Plan Commission(Commission)a few comments were made regarding the window elevations. • Sheet 2 in the submitted Packet contains the revised elevations. • Additional comments concern interior bicycle parking. They are located within in the first floor in the southern staircase(Sheet 3 of submitted Packet). It was overlooked at the Commission meeting. • Tom Kegley-How many spaces? • David Klain-Four spaces. • All other comments have been addressed. Department Report: Rachel Keesling • The Department of Community Services(Staff)only had a few items to take care of,that Mark Thorpe has mentioned. • The previous building design included windows with various configurations.The petitioner agreed to incorporate more horizontal window patterns in the building, in order to simplify the look of the building. • Bicycle parking is inside the building. It was simply overlooked. • All other Unified Development Ordinance(UDO)requirements are met and Staff recommends approval. Committee Comments: Tom Kegley • Four bicycle spaces may be adequate,but there may be greater demand with different tenants. • David Klain-We will explore options to provide more spaces. John Adams • The 3D rendering in the Packet is prior to the window adjustments? • David Klain-Correct. • Am I correct in assuming it is not a change in dimensions,but a change in the configurations? • David Klain-Correct.The same proportions are present. Commercial Committee Minutes 12-04-18 1 Tom motions to approve Docket No. 18090015,Laura seconds,motion passes 4-0. 2. Docket No. 18110005 ADLS: Riverview Health Urgent Care&ER The applicant seeks site and building design approval for a new healthcare facility. This is the previous location of the Fifth Third Bank. The address is 14585 Hazel Dell Parkway. It is zoned PUD/Planned Unit Development within the Riverview Medical Park PUD(Z-410-03)and is not located within any Overlay Zone. Filed by Mark Leach of Faegre Baker Daniels LLP on behalf of EQ Hazel Development, LLC. Petitioner: Steve Hardin(Faegre Baker Daniels LLP),Anthony Zerre(Equity),Jared Stark(Intuitive Health),& Mark Leach(Faegre Baker Daniels LLP) • Steve Hardin-We are not seeking a vote tonight,but are here to provide insight regarding the petition. We expect to return for the January 3`d Commercial Committee(Committee). The site is the current vacant building at the corner of 146th St. and Hazel Dell Parkway,the former bank branch.The remainder of the development is mostly medical and health care related. The current proposal is to tear down the existing building and build a new medical facility. Greater connectivity will be provided to the campus. • Jared Stark-The concept is a free standing emergency department and urgent care center.Medical care is experiencing increased costs across the country.About 70%of all emergency room(ER)visits are unnecessary. Many of the ER services can be provided at a cost effective urgent care facility. Recently I had the option to take my daughter to either an urgent care which costs around $200-$250 or an ER which would cost around$2,500-$3,000. • Steve Hardin-The submitted Packet contains the site plan,architecture,and landscape plan. We did receive Staff comments. Our team has worked through the Staff comments and we are comfortable that appropriate changes can be made,to Staffs satisfaction,by the January 3rd Committee.Two issues need to be worked on with Staff before the o The aerial under Tab 2 shows a number of evergreen trees within the Hamilton County(County) right-of-way(ROW)as a buffer to residential neighbors. We worked with Staff regarding the removal of the trees to obtain better visibility. The County Highway Department is in support of removal of the trees. We have worked with Staff to provide an appropriate landscape plan. We have not had an opportunity to speak to the Urban Forester yet. o Staff has also asked for a more comprehensive sign plan for the site. We have decided to not seek a variance for the third wall sign. • Steve Hardin-The Planned Unit Development(PUD)standards require similar complimentary architecture to existing buildings in the campus. The first version of the PUD included a more modern building. We have worked with Staff to create a building with both modern and existing elements. Department Report: Rachel Keesling • The PUD requires that the building complement existing buildings in the area. Pictures were provided of surrounding buildings in the submitted Packet. More work needs to be done on design, specifically where brick and EIFS is used. • The PUD stipulates that petitions only need to submit ADLS Amendment reviews through the Committee. • There is a landscaping easement along Hazel Dell Parkway which needs to be worked around. 146th St. is in the County's jurisdiction. Hamilton County is comfortable with removing the trees;however the Urban Forester is not. • The petitioner is providing a vehicular connection to the buildings to the east.The building is pulled up to the corner and parking is provided in the rear and side. • Review of wayfinding signage will occur when provided to Staff. • Another change requested was moving the dumpster to the west so it was not one of the first things seen when entering the site. • An updated site plan has been provided. • The entrance off the combined drive will remain. • Staff recommends that the petition is continued to the January 3`d Committee meeting. Commercial Committee Minutes 12-04-18 2 Committee Comments: Laura Campbell • Councilwoman Sue Finkam asked about the future round-a-bout plans for this intersection.Have you worked with the County Highway Department?She was concerned about the proximity of the building to the intersection. • Mark Leach-The County has not worked with us. • Rachel Keesling-Staff is working with Hamilton County to obtain the plans for the intersection. There is more right-of-way at the north section of the intersection. • Steve Hardin-At Technical Advisory Committee(TAC)no one mentioned needing additional ROW. We will have an update for you at the next meeting. • Sue Finkam's concern was additional ROW will be needed and the building would then be too close to the round-a-bout. • Tom Kegley-If a round-a-bout is built; I would be concerned about the main driveway entrance. • I learned that up until 10 pm the ER is charged at the urgent care rate?Is this still the case with this new facility? • Jared Stark-It will not take the place of that. Tom Kegley • A new trend is emerging with the aim to keep people out of hospitals and instead provide alternate means of healthcare.In the wings is the 96th St.and Spring Mill Rd.hospital project which will come back. Will the emergency care be for level 1 trauma also or will a patient be triaged and sent to Noblesville,IN or Westfield, IN. • Jared Stark-The facility will not be level 1 trauma and most of the surrounding ERs are not level 1 trauma centers.There are certain patients that this facility is not able to treat based on equipment, physician level,and accessibility to specialists. • Would this be a low level center where a patient is given some treatment and then sent back out again? • Jared Stark-We do transfer patients. The average is one or two a day. Alan Potasnik • Are you planning on having any beds at the facility? • Jared Stark-We will not have any inpatient beds and it is not our purpose or core goal,which is to provide great care at a cost effective manner and high level of service.The amount of time patients spend at the facility is incredibly low. • An ambulance bay and emergency entrance will exist? • Jared Stark-Lab and imaging services will be on site with the appropriate technicians.A physician will be on site 24/7. • This will be a 24/7 facility?With regards to the emergency medical service(EMS)vehicles,the use of sirens will be sensitive to neighbors to the west. Is there a policy to address this? • Jared Stark—Correct. We do not control the policy of the EMS system. EMS personnel know the capabilities of surrounding facilities and will decide where the patient will go based on these two factors? Because we are not a level ltrauma center,we expect EMS to go to other facilities. The amount of ambulance traffic will be low and most patients will arrive at the facility in their own vehicle or with a loved one. • Tom Kegley-I live in the Reserve at Springmill which backs up to St. Vincent Heart Center.The sirens are turned off as soon as they enter Illinois St. • The hospitals used to control the ambulances to facilities and now the City of Carmel(Carmel)controls ambulances within City limits. • I am assuming that the dumpster is for general trash. Where will medical waste be disposed? Commercial Committee Minutes 12-04-18 3 • Jared Stark—The intention of the dumpster is for trash and paper. Biohazard will be stored inside and picked up for disposal. • Rachel, under Tab 2,the Fifth-third bank will be torn down and the new building will be pushed closer to the intersection?The existing entrance is between the Fifth-third bank and the church parking lot. If an EMS vehicle entered the property what side of the building would it go to? • Rachel Keesling-It would go to the south.The main entrance off of Hazel Dell Parkway and 146th St.are the exact same. The ambulance entrance is on the southern portion of the building. The main patience entrance is at the northeast corner. • Anthony Zerre-For clarification,the south entrance is just ambulatory pick-up. It is not a drop off.The north entrance is the ambulatory drop-off. • There will be no changes to the entryway to the south;this will still serve the office buildings to the east of the site?There is an exit onto 146th St. also? • Anthony Zerre-Correct. Yes,that is further east on the campus. Tom Kegley • Where is the actual emergency entrance located? • Anthony Zerre-Patient drop-off is on the northeast corner of the building. Alan Potasnik • Rachel you mentioned in the Department Report something about the architectural design. Can you please explain this in more detail? • Rachel Keesling-When you look at the building elevations,the amount of EIFS is relatively in check. However,when you look at the south end of the building there is an expansive EIFS feature. I want to push the brick further up to follow the roofline and ridges in order to reduce the amount of EIFS on the building. There is flexibility in the PUD to provide a greater design aesthetic. • Anthony Zerre-We did include those changes in the dumpster enclosure,mechanical screening areas,and generator enclosure. • Rachel Keesling-I asked the petitioners to follow the design of the building with a base middle and top for the enclosures and screening areas. Brick walls will be used to cover the generators on the south end of the building. • Was there no bike parking to begin with? • Rachel Keesling-There was not,but there will be. John Adams • Do we have approval authority or does this petition need to be approved by Plan Commission? • Rachel Keesling-The PUD stipulates only Committee approval is needed.There will be a variance request for building size. Over 11,000 sq.ft. is requested and sq. ft. shall not exceed 8,000. Signage will be revised to be in compliance. • The petitioner has done a great job of integrating the building with the existing infrastructure. Alan Potasnik • The office buildings to the east,are they owned by Riverview? • Anthony Zerre-The buildings directly east are private practices,but the buildings just east of that are owned by Riverview. • Are there plans to do anything with the southern stub street? • Anthony Zerre-No. This item will be continued to the next Commercial Committee meeting on Tuesday January 3,2018. Commercial Committee Minutes 12-04-18 4 3. Docket No. 18100007 OA:LIDO Patch Amendment The applicant seeks to amend the Unified Development Ordinance in order to(A)amend the standards for Fences, Bufferyards,Parking,Bicycle Parking,General Yard Standards and Waivers of Development Standards;(B) amend Article 9: Processes and Article 11: Definitions;and(C)correct a variety of errors and omissions from the conversion to the Unified Development Ordinance format. Filed by the Department of Community Services on behalf of the Carmel Plan Commission. Petitioner:Adrienne Keeling • Alan Potasnik-What was missed after the original changes to the UDO? • I would say it is a lengthy revision because of all the formatting needed.There were only a few items missed and also a few instances of Staff learning more about the document as it was utilized. • An example of missed text are the Cl and C2 zoning districts parking standards. The Cl district in the old ordinance did not have parking requirements and the C2 district had its own limited parking section. When standards are hidden in the zoning district section and not the parking standards section they can be overlooked. • Alan Potasnik-Could that have been because this Cl and C2 parking was left to the Cannel Redevelopment Commission(CRC)or was this a complete miss on our part? • Most Cl and C2 changes are left to the CRC.I think the C I and C2 icons were placed in the wrong places and the issue didn't come to light until the CRC brought a project through. • An instance of evolution to the UDO are the fence requirements.An issue came to light when hundreds of fence permits came through Staff this year. • Alan Potasnik-Committee,how would you all like to proceed? • Tom Kegley-I agree that going line by line would take quite some time.A synopsis is sufficient. *PC Secretary's Comment: The following page numbers 1- 1 S begins on page 4 of the Submitted Packet titled "Packet for PC 11-20-18" • Page 1 through Line 84 on page 2: One will find the district intents for the S2,RI,R2,R3,and R4 zoning districts. It was pointed out that some of the language was outdated from the old Comprehensive Plan. This is an update to correlate with the Suburban Residential classification in the Comprehensive Plan. • Line 74: The R4 classification is more in line with Urban Residential classification. • Line 91: UR district.There is no guidance for what the rear setback should be when there is not an alley adjacent.20 ft. was added when not adjacent to an alley. • Page 3,Old Town Overlay district: Lines 101 and 107 is a cleaning up of language for landscaping for the Old Town Overlay district.Currently the front yard shall be landscaped and maintained with a groomed landscape.This is being cleaned up to read"Lots shall be landscaped and maintained with trees..." • Line 112, Range Line Road Overlay district: The paragraph on line 130 is being removed.The overlay is no longer a temporary district. There was a sunset clause that was renewed every year to continue the overlay. • Page 4,Line 144: The old ordinance allows for an exemption for Development Plan requirements if there is a 50%or less addition.The overlay requires new buildings to be pulled up to the street with parking in the rear or side.There was concern that a simple building addition would trigger this requirement.The 50%exemption is being put back into the ordinance. • Line 105, West 116`s St. Overlay: In the process of standardizing the language of the overlays we included language that stipulated that any parcel partially in or out of the boundary the overlay should apply.This overlay district also has a paragraph with a 990 ft.boundary depth.The two paragraphs conflicted.The 990 ft.boundary will apply. • Alan Potasnik-Lets go back to line 141.These are meant for the C-1 and C2 district?These will remain? Does paragraph B(Line 144)affect paragraph A(Line 142)? • Yes, it states that the Cl and C2 districts are exempt from the Range Line Overlay.Paragraph B is just another exemption and does not affect paragraph A. • Line 162,Non-Residential Accessory Building and Use Standards: Cl and C2 icons were accidentally placed in this section and will be removed. • Line 167: The paragraph is being copied from the Residential Accessory Building section to make it clear that an Improvement Location Permit is required. Commercial Committee Minutes 12-04-18 5 • Line 182, Fence and Wall Standards: The maximum height is amended to add; "except as otherwise noted for fences on corner lots or along certain street classifications." • Page 5, Line 197,Corner Lots: Currently,the fence height is 42"along any street. This is considered a Front Yard. • Alan Potasnik-Any place that fronts a street applies? • Correct. For purposes of the UDO, any property that connects to a street is considered a Front Yard. • Alan Potasnik-Is an alley considered a street? • No,an alley is not considered a street. We are proposing for these corner lots that an existing 6-ft. fence can be replaced at 6-ft.This only is meant for local streets and would not be the case along Gray Rd.or 126th St.,or any larger perimeter streets.This is meant for interior streets in a subdivision. • Alan Potasnik- So it is grandfathered. • Rachel Keesling-Would it help,on Line 189,to add"(number 4 below)"after"...corner lots..."and then add"(number 5 below)"after"...certain street classification..."? • It could. Sections 4-6 could apply. • Alan Potasnik-We wanted a document that people can read at their house and understand what exactly is required. • Rachel Keesling-I could see somebody not being able to find the definition of a Corner Lot or the street classifications. • Line 202, section 5: We would still like the fence height to remain at 42". When we amended the fence requirements a few years ago an option was added allowing a 6-ft. fence to be installed if it was set back 6-ft. from the property line with landscaping in front of it, instead of a 42"fence right on the property line. The question arises of whether or not the 6-ft., setback,and landscaped fence could be a privacy fence.This amendment allows for this,but only if set back and landscaped. • Alan Potasnik-It doesn't make any difference of the type of fence as long as it is set back appropriately? • Tom Kegley-Before I was a Commission member, I was the president of an HOA.A commercial development occurred and I worked with the Carmel to install a screening wall.We are trying to do the right thing for Carmel with these changes. • Rachel Keesling-Does the 25%look like a picket fence?What does the 25%mean? • As you are looking at the fence,25%has to be open.A picket fence would qualify.A shadowbox would not qualify. • Line 208,Parkway Arterial Streets: We are proposing that Keystone Parkway have their own fence requirements that allows for 8-ft. in height and exemption from the 25%visibility.Additionally,24"may be added in case of grading differences. • Alan Potasnik-This would affect a situation similar to the wooden fences at the Enclave subdivision or Waterford subdivision?These would be grandfathered in? • Staff worked with the Enclave subdivision to obtain a variance for their fence. • Line 219: This is a repeated point and therefore is being deleted. • John Adams-What exactly is a required side or rear yard? • That is the setback. • Mike Hollibaugh-Every lot has a front,rear,and side yard setback. Sometimes there are two sides or two rears. It depends on the lot. • Line 235 &236: This is deleting a duplication of a definition. • Page 6,Line 251: This clarifies that commercial variances and use variances follow the commercial landscape standards. • Line 264: The addition allows the Board of Zoning Appeals to apply the commercial landscape standards to Special Use or Use Variance requests.There are then references to the process of Special Uses. • Line 268: In the course of the Urban Forester reviewing commercial landscape plans, it has been requested that the amount of shrubs and trees is reduced. There is not much room for all the landscaping, easements,and utilities.The most important vegetation remains.The Urban Forester has agreed to keep Bufferyard A and B shade or evergreen trees at the same required number while reducing the shrubs and ornamental trees. • Alan Potasnik-I was going to ask a valid reason for this?Why is he asking for this reduction now? • It has been several years since this portion of the ordinance has been amended. Commercial Committee Minutes 12-04-18 6 • Rachel Keesling-Staff also did not want to change too much of the zoning ordinance during the format transition. • Staff was trying to translate the ordinance into a new format,not write new law.There is another planting table of page 12.We would like to keep the two planting tables as similar as possible for consistency purposes and to reduce confusion. There have been discussions to keep the shade or evergreen trees at four and five for A and B.C could be at six and then D would be eight trees.The Urban Forester did request the shrubs and ornamental trees be reduced a bit. • Page 7,Line 282: Parking lot planting requirements. Green represents a rewording. Staff is proposing the plantings are both interior&perimeter plantings.Additionally,every parking space is no more than 66-ft. from a shade tree.The number of trees would then be based on the amount of parking spaces. Sub-section D(Line 313)stipulates that half of the required parking lot plantings would be around the perimeter. Those plantings could be used in conjunction of any perimeter bufferyard. • Page 8,Line 338: Topping of trees.If the trees are topped they are subject to tree removal and replacement as determined by the Urban Forester because a tree can be severely damaged by a topping. • Tom Kegley-When Indianapolis Power&Lighting does this,who is responsible? • The responsibility is based on where the tree is located. • Page 9,Line 374: The other bufferyard planting schedule is present. • Tom Kegley-They required amount increased for the shade and evergreen trees. • Staff discussed matching the two tables.The reductions are still present for the ornamental trees and shrubs.The yard widths will remain the same. • Line 378,General Parking Standards: The Cl and C2 icons will be removed. We are clarifying that principal buildings are what needs to provide the parking space calculation.A section(Line 389)was added to point out that the UR,UC, and MC zoning districts have separate standards. • The final amendment in this section(Line 398)allows the Director to reduce the minimum required parking spaces for mixed use developments by up to 25%when the peak for one or more uses is different than the peak for another use.Currently,five different uses can be in one building and the parking requirement for all uses have to be added together. This allows for greater flexibility and the Petitioner could alternately come to the Commission for a 35%waiver reduction.They can also be seen by the Board of Zoning Appeals for further reduction. • Alan Potasnik-What about when uses change in the building and then people need to find parking spaces? • At that point it is up to the building owner and the tenants to know what their parking capacity is and needs are. • Laura Campbell-The Olivia is a prime example.As more businesses come into the Olivia it is harder to find parking spaces. • Tom Kegley-Another example are all the buildings along the Monon. • Alan Potasnik-Is the goal to get less parking? • Often times there is an abundance in parking,which is wasted land and space. We need to look at parking in general as an overall change,but this is an immediate item where discretion can be used. • Tom Kegley-Tenants can turnover causing changes in parking needs. • Mike Hollibaugh-What Staff found over the years is that developers are overbuilding parking which sits vacant. If parking is tight then leases may not be signed. Tenants will find a space that works for them. This will also reduce development costs. If one has to walk a little bit because the convenient spaces are taken,that's not a bad thing either.It's healthy. • Alan Potasnik-There was an instance where I was unable to find parking immediately surrounding the building and it was raining. I am sensitive to the market forces deciding leases,but I am just hard-pressed to change something. • Tom Kegley-I went to the Olivia the other day and had to park further then I would have liked.As I left there were no parking spots and a line out of the door waiting to be seated.I think the guidelines we have established for tenant usage to parking spots is reasonably done. • Mike Hollibaugh-If a service or restaurant is popular then it is difficult to acquire. • Alan Potasnik-How often do you expect to make determinations regarding the subject text? Commercial Committee Minutes 12-04-18 7 • Mike Hollibaugh-I am uncertain at this point in time. Currently they are seen by the hearing officer. Mixed-use is a different matter.There is discussion about the amount of trips during the day. Residents may leave to go to work and then employees and customers will come to use the parking spaces. Developers will attempt to maximize the amount of parking and may not need to use the 25%. • Laura Campbell-Are there any examples you can give where there is unused parking?I am trying to figure out how this change came about? • Mike Hollibaugh-A Cl project spurred this.More parking is present than Pedcor feels they needed.A conditional approval was a variance was needed or they needed to come up with a shared parking agreement.An easement to use the Tarkington parking garage sufficed.The way the ordinance reads today uses accumulate creating the need for a plethora of parking spaces. • Alan Potasnik-There are all sorts of ways to get around this. I do not really like this. • Mike Hollibaugh-It is not supposed to be a tool to subvert the ordinance,but building owners will find someone to pay the rent regardless.City BBQ had so much traffic that it was unable to lease tenant space, but the property owner eventually filled the other tenant spaces with low traffic uses. • Page 10,Parking Dimension Design: The last column titled"Space Depth"did not match up with the text "Min. Space Length"in the below illustration. Both will now be called"Minimum Depth from Aisle". • Line 409,Bicycle Parking Standards: When this went to City Council(Council), it was determined that long term parking would only be encouraged. Figures would be left for negotiation and incentive purposes,but would not be required.Over the course of using the ordinance, Staff realized that hotels are not on the list for both types of bicycle parking and that the office category short-term bicycle parking was predicated on having long term parking in the mix to alleviate the amount. For the office use Staff is proposing to shorten the short-term requirement from 1 space per 20,000 sq. ft.to 10,000 sq. ft. for a minimum of 4 spaces. For the hotels we are proposing to require one long-term space per 15 guests, minimum of four spaces and one short-term space per 30 guest rooms,minimum of four spaces.These standards are in line with other cities and Cannel has seen an increase in bicycle tourism. • Alan Potasnik-What is the definition between long-term and short-term with regards to office buildings? • Short-term is for an individual present for less than two or three hours. Long-term parking would be used by employees all day.Long-term for office is only encourage and not required. • Rachel Keesling-The long term parking is typically covered or secured. Short-term is typically the inverted U-racks. • Alan Potasnik-When calculating how much parking is needed,how would Staff determine between long- term and short-term?If a 10,000 sq.ft. space is present,how is that divided up between long-term and short-term? • The short-term spaces are required by the front door. If both were required it would be two spaces for each 10,000 sq. ft. of long-term plus the one space for 10,000 sq. ft. for short-term. • Alan Potasnik-I understand that,but let's say I am developing a 10,000 sq. ft.office building how many total bicycle parking spaces will I need? • You would need four short-term spaces,which are two racks and we would encourage you to include two long-term spaces. • Alan Potasnik-We can't hold a particular petitioner hostage because they don't include long-term bicycle parking.As a Commission we have a right to move a project forward based on the UDO. Council can do what they want after they leave us. • Tom Kegley-I enjoy bicycles,but I am not as enthusiastic as others on Council.I am looking at the types of bicycles and the increased costs.We can't hold petitioners hostage,but we can do a little arm twisting and encouraging with regards to the type of parking. • Alan Potasnik-Why can't we require long-term parking? • When this was brought through a few years ago the Council did not want this to be a requirement.They did appreciate the calculations were present. • Alan Potasnik-As far as Staff is concerned what is seen here is what Staff would like instead of making it a requirement? • Staff would love to see it as a requirement,but are not quite ready for it. • John Adams-With the proposed rewrite,there would be only one option and the hotel has required long- term parking. Why not make the office long-term require also? Commercial Committee Minutes 12-04-18 8 • Only the hotel would require long-term bicycle parking.The entire bicycle parking chart was not included.Only the two proposed amendments are included. • Laura Campbell-I think Council at the time believed it should be a market driven decision.If an office decides to incorporate bike parking what would they need to do to add it? • Rachel Keesling-If it is on the inside,do what you want,just don't block egress or hallways.Anything on the outside Staff would like to review the proposal. Lot coverage percentage may be an issue. • Tom Kegley-What if they replaced two car spaces for bicycle parking? • Rachel Keesling-As long as it does not affect the required amount of spaces. We are happy to help reconfigure. • Staff is receiving a lot of voluntary long-term bicycle parking,especially from apartment complexes because they do not want the bikes on balconies or in the hallways. • Page 11,Line 421,Amount of Parking Spaces Standards: We ae removing the Cl and C2 icons. We need to change"Maximum"to"Minimum"on Line 423 in order to stay consistent. • Line 426: There is an exemption to allow certain things to exceed 24"into a setback. Staff would like to add window wells to this list.Air-conditioning units,cornices,brick belt courses,and ornamental features are already present. • Line 431: Staff is proposing to add a prerequisite when lots are established to have direct access to a public or private street. Clarifying that access via an easement through another property is not permitted. There are other instances in the ordinance that require this,but a bit of dot connecting is required. Then the other subsections are number accordingly. • Page 12,Line 470: We are in the process article for Development Plan and ADLS. Staff missed items hidden within an individual chapter.There is a separate process for the Cl and C2 district that was never translated over,which is having the Director acting as the hearing officer for the Cl and C2 districts.This process is added back and mirrors the process.This continues to page 13. • Line 563: Staff is correcting the Subdivision Control and/or Zoning Ordinance Reference to say Unified Development Ordinance. • Page 14, Line 569: Waiver of Development Standard. It was confusing before because it was interpreted that only overlay districts can have development standard waivers. This is not the case and being clarified. • Line 580: The definition of vision clearance on corner lots is being corrected to remove"residential"and to add"local".Alleys are also being added because of the amount of development around alleys. Tom motions to forward Docket No. 18100007 to full Plan Commission with Favorable Recommendation, Laura seconds,motion passes 4-0. Meeting adjourned at 7:59 PM. jor Nathan Chavez Recording Secretary Alan Potas• k Chairman Commercial Committee Minutes 12-04-18 9